There's a slight danger that the EU's forbearance will run out and that they'll tell her to sod off later this week

It may not be as slight as all that, thought I don't think it probable. The words 'traitor' and 'traitorous' have been widely abused and thrown at the slightest provocation, so I am hesitant about using them at all. But since a near text book example would be to encourage a foreign power to act against your government's stated wishes, I can't think of a more appropriate term for Iain Duncan Smith's and Owen Patterson's reported attempts to persuade Hungary and other countries to veto any request from the UK for an extension.

I see two routes to a no-deal as live at the moment. The more likely one is that the EU does not agree to an extension, most likely because of a veto. Should that happen, Bercow will not be able to allow a vote on the deal unless a substantial change is made, under his own ruling. So some amendment will be made to the deal - perhaps by making explicit mechanisms for the rest of Parliament to have a role in the future negotiations. Should Bercow not agree this is sufficient, or should that fail, we could be into no-deal.

The less likely one is that the EU agrees to an extension, but attaches conditions of such severity that Parliament does not accept the extension. As this would require people who votes against no-deal to now prefer it to the conditions, they would have to be very extreme.

(A third path opens if an extension permits a complete restart of the negotiations, but I do not think that is something the EU would consider.)

It's changed now, but this morning the BBC news page, in the second row under the main headline, wrote: PM: I Will Not Speak His Name just above a pictures of May & Bercow. Wow, I thought, she's losing it.

Then I noticed that they meant the New Zealand PM in the main story, referring to the multi-murderer. (Quite right too, deprive him of the PR.) But it gave me a wintry sort of laugh. I take my humour where I can find it these days...

For an institution whose lineage can be traced back 804 years to Magna Carta, Parliament’s descent from consulting the people to dismissing their response has taken less than four years. It’s worth recalling some of the major stages in its decline.

"In June 2015, Parliament voted by a majority of 544 votes to 53 to hold the EU Referendum, rightly recognising that such an important constitutional question could be decided only by the electorate. On best estimates, in June 2016 Britain voted to leave the European Union by 406 parliamentary constituencies to 242. It voted to leave the European Union by 263 voting areas to 119, and by 9 regions to 3.

Conservative-held constituencies in 2016 voted to leave by 247 to 80. Labour-held constituencies in 2016 voted to leave by 148 to 84. In contrast, among 2016 MPs, Remain was the preferred option by 486 to 160.

In February 2017, MPs voted by 498 votes to 114 to trigger Article 50. At the 2017 General Election, approximately 85 per cent of votes were cast for parties pledging in their manifestos fully to implement the Referendum result."

Beautiful photograph of a gawking crypto-fascist, Nigel Farage posing in front of the British flag, above the phrase used constantly by the British Empire regarding countries they ruled: IS BRITAIN READY FOR SELF-GOVERNMENT Don'cha love it !! Jim Carroll

Democracy in this country is predicated on the electorate being able to change its mind every few years. The roots of totalitarianism lie in the fear of the electorate changing its mind away from what the people in power prefer. What has become blantantly obvious is that the only deal on the table that is even remotely in the interests of the people in this country is the deal we currently enjoy with the EU as full and influential members. Not perfect, far from it, but there's simply no competition. No one on this forum, despite repeated requests, has been able to tell us what is going to be any good for this country about brexit. Which reminds me of another tenet of democracy, that we entrust the people we elect to act in our best interests. Theresa May has had to be repeatedly reined in since the referendum over her attempts to subvert parliamentary democracy. Targeting the people who complain about the extremely flawed and undemocratic referendum is a classic example of disingenuously choosing the wrong target.

It is astonishing and simultaneously not in the least out of character to hear the DUP still saying the EU needs to change the deal and some Brexiteers claiming some people saying they might vote differently should be enough to satisfy Bercow's objections. Deliberately blinding yourself to reality is never a good stance.

Watching newsnight - HMRC still haven't put measures in place to exempt UK businesses from changes in customs requirements if UK leaves EU, except for a small handful of businesses. If I was asked to place a bet on who would come of worse in a confrontation between a 42 ton truck and a customs jobsworth, I know where the smart money would be.

The losing side in any referendum, especially if the result was close, can be relied on to callfor a fresh vote soon enough. That would without doubt have happened if it had gone the other way in 2016. (Nigel Farage even promised on the night the result was declared.). The winner could be relied on to assert that a fresh vote once "the people had spoken" as an attack on democracy. There is no diubt that those favouring remain would have done that too.

But in both cases the actual reason for that wouldn't be anything so high-principled, it's simply a fear that another vote would come up with a different result.

I think that allowing a fresh note is the only democratic way to act. People have a right to change their mind - as time passes people who were too young to vote grow old enough. And of course circumstances mean that the question that needs to be asked changes.

Where there is a significant delay in carrying out the result of a referendum so that the number of fresh voters is greater than the margin of victory, and there is a significant demand for a new vote, it seems to me clear that a comittment to democracy should mean having such a vote.

As for "democracy" could anyone suggest that Norway, Denmark and Ireland are traitors to democracy because in analogous circumstances they had another vote? (In Norway the vote was to confirm the first vote to leave, in Denmark and Norway the outcome was to reverse it.) And tha5 in denying people any

The winners, whoever they were, can always be relied on to say that giving a chance to change their minds was antidemocratic. The truth isn't anything so high principled. It's simply that they fear people might vote the other way. Or that people who'd been to young might vote to change the result. (The number of new young voters is now far larger than the narrow margin of victory in 2016 - and the evidence is tgey are overwhelming for remaining, since they are probably the ones who stand to lose most in any Brexit.)

Norway, Denmark and Ireland have all had a second vote in analogous circumstances. In Norway this confirmed the decision not to join the EU, in Denmark and Ireland it reversed the earlier one. (In the Republic of Ireland today there is currently something like 84% support for EU membership - and of course in 2016 in Northern Ireland most votes were for remaining in the EU.) So are these countries traitors to democratic principles, while the hilariouslt shambolic UK government is a brave upholder of such principles?

and of course in 2016 in Northern Ireland most votes were for remaining in the EU.) To be precise a majority of merely 5.8%. A very small "most" I would say.

shambolic UK government

I would say a treacherous Parliament would be more accurate. The last election was fought on a leave ticket by both major parties. If MPs place their security of tenure above their morality and stand as liars then what kind of democracy is that?

The BBC is reporting that May is only going to ask for a short delay, which is what the Brexiteers in the cabinet wanted. With the exception of a general election, I think this rules out any form of public involvement - there is simply not time to agree the referendum question and hold a vote in three months. Equally the Kyle amendment where May's deal is put to a public confirmation hits a severe time barrier, which gets worse with every day's delay. It seems to me that the final decision (or final indecision) will now be taken in Parliament without involving the public.

"5.8%. A very small "most" I would say."In the referendum, 52 percent voted to leave the EU, with 48 percent voting to remain. Yes indeed Nice to see someone who accuses critics of the British Government of being "Anglophobes" using terms like "a treacherous Parliament" Jim Carroll

Iains You have gone too far. I was trying to point out that Jim personally seems to have benefited from his life in the UK, as, no doubt, did his father. And that if they continue to send bombs to the UK it may be friends or even relatives of Jim himself who get maimed or murdered.Iain's posts are being deleted from the bottom (so far) of this thread, so this post should probably also go away, but since Iain has been such a horse's ass there should probably be an occasional reminder to him and others that hateful posts aren't acceptable here. ---ticked-off mudelf

The "majority for remain over leave" in Northern Ireland was 11.56% if you do it by subtracting the percentage of leave votes (44.22%) from remain votes (55.78%).The excess of remain votes over leave votes was 26.1% of leave votes, another way of looking at it. To be even more honest, 440,707 voted remain and 349,442 voted leave, a difference of 91,265, which looks quite impressive considering that only 349,442 voted leave. "A majority of 5.8%" is the most dishonest way of putting it. What is actually meant by that 5.8% is that remain achieved 5.8% (5.78% to be precise) over the 50% passmark. We shouldn't be surprised, I suppose, that rabid brexiteers would select the means of expression that looks most like remain only just made it. Still, I've given you the various ways of putting it. Take your pick. Or your nitpick. You decide.

What is intriguing is how these two explanations of voting – the ethnonational and the “left behind” theses – interact. It emerges that Catholics are quite homogenous in their pro-Remain disposition. There was little variation between how working class, less well-educated Catholics voted compared to middle class, better-educated Catholics...

... Higher-skilled and educated Protestants were much more likely than lower-skilled, lower-educated Protestants to vote Remain. There is almost no difference between how Catholics who went to grammar school and those who didn’t voted. But Protestants who didn’t go to grammar school were much more likely to vote Leave than those who did. [source: theconversation.com]

The same source indicates that anti-immigrationists in Northern Ireland were overwhelmingly more likely to vote leave (ironic or what) as were people who "oppose homosexuality" (not quite sure how that was defined). Good to know who your friends are, brexiteers.

"In the British democracy a simple majority wins" And the majority who voted against Brexit in NI exceeds that of those who voted to leave in Britain - you use one and ignore the other You depict your leaders as "traitoers" yet describe others who say far less about them as Anglophiles You really aren't the brightest Iron Cross on the uniform, are you "And that if they continue to send bombs to the UK it may be friends or even relatives of Jim himself who get maimed or murdered. You really are every bit as bad as your chosen bedfellow, aren't you? Are you really never going to respond to anything that has been said Jim

Meanwhile, back on the topic of the thread, and without needing to resort to Brexshitters' standard tactics of insult and abuse of other posters on here, an accurate synopsis of the utter shit-pool our insane, incompetent PM and her bunch of clueless acolytes have got us into.

I'm not sure whether it constitutes INJURY or INSULT, but there is an opinion piece in the Telegraph this morning by none other than the eponymous son of the current United States place holder, apparently arguing that the father gave PM May really good advice when he visited last year, and she did not take it. Since I am not a paying subscriber of the Telegraph I cannot tell of 'Junior' cared to explicitly restate the sage wisdom of The Donald.

Reactions of shock to Jeremy Corbyn’s refusal to partcipate in a meeting with other party leaders the PM invited to earlier are starting to populate Twitter. This from the Daily Mail’s Claire Ellicott: Hearing @jeremycorbyn left meeting with Theresa May and opposition leaders because he refused to sit down with @ChukaUmunna because he 'wasn't proper party leader'

Several others are reporting this, including Vince Cable.

======

I am also shocked. Corbyn is human, like the rest of us. But such pettiness at this crucial time is well below the standards I expect of a party leader. All else aside, to make one of the key stories of today that the Labour Leader is behaving like a petulant toddler is as damaging to future election prospects as any opponent could hope.

Jeremy Corbyn reportedly walked out on a crucial Brexit briefing with party leaders because former Labour MP Chuka Umunna was invited. The Labour Leader is thought to have refused to sit down with the Independent Group spokesman as 'he's not a real party leader'. The move has been criticised online, with Countdown presenter Rachel Riley writing on Twitter (inset): 'Corbyn on Hamas (the terrorists): I wanted Hamas to be part of the debate. Corbyn on Chuka Umunna (the anti-racism ex-Labour MP): Tell him I’m not talking to him. OK, got it.'

He is even more of a clown than treason May!

Could find the Independant group is bigger than Labour in the not too distant future.

It was supposed to be a meeting involving May and opposition party leaders. Umunna is neither a leader nor a member of a political party. Jeremy was perfectly correct in walking out. Umunna is a charlatan and an opportunist who has betrayed his constituents by turning the back on the party that paid good money and spent lots of resources to get him elected. He is utterly undemocratic. I'd have walked out of that room a damn sight faster than Jeremy did, and, I must say, I'm amazed at your response, DMcG.

Don't you think come the next election, Steve, that the opponents will make a great deal of capital out of that action? Sure, the meeting was presented as one of leaders, but what was the downside of Corbyn staying? He could easily have issued a statement aftwrwards saying TIG is not a party, and so should not have been present but in the national interests it was more important to seize any chance of getting May to listen to everyone's views. Instead it looks as if he has put a personal animosity with the TIG as more important than the country's future. Bad politics and tactical play, especially as everyone expected the meeting to be the usual of May repeating herself and ignoring everyone. The statement by the Lib Dema, Greens etc immediately after the meeting looked very much as if it could have been 90% prepared beforehand, with just scope for a few tweaks if needed.

No, I don't think that. These machinations will be rapidly lost in the morass of insanity engulfing this issue. The last thing that people will be recalling, in a week's time, will be Jezza walking out of a meeting with an out-of-control prime minister who had invited an unqualified charlatan. Principle does still mean something, tha knows...

Sorry Steve, Corbyn's behaviour there was childish. He should be anyone who is prepared to work with him to prevent the catastrophe towards which May is leading us. That includes TIG, and if they would take part, that should include Sinn Fein. Who might be persuaded to take their seats in this extreme situation.

I agree with David and DMcG. Corbyn behaved like a petulant child, and his unstatesmanlike display will be included in the armouries of his opponents - along with Antisemite/Enemy of The People/ Friend of Terrorists/yadda yadda - to be dragged out to beat him, and the Labour Party, with as and when it suits them.

However, a more important issue that everyone should be beating The Praying Mantis with is her bone-headed, arrogant refusal to involve anyone from the other parties in the BrexShit process until this late stage. Why she didn't make the biggest issue since the end of WW2 a cross-party matter, and set up a cross-party group to handle the process is, to say the very least, baffling. Clearly, she put her opportunity for personal glory ahead of the good of the nation. Shame she made a total f**k-up of the whole thing.

I am disgusted by May's condescending and patronising behaviour. How dare she presume what I want. She could not form a majority government and she only stays in power by virtue of support from the DUP. The referendum was not a mandate to dictate the terms on which we would leave. The fallback position can only be leaving EU but remaining in EEA until a further referendum says otherwise. There is no mandate to discontinue freedom of movement - that is purly a presumptive statement that May made. There is no mandate to leave the single market or customs unions, so there is no lawful basis for UK or EU to withdraw the benefit of these from any businesses or consumers who want thesew to continue.

EU27 customs and border officials MUST continue to allow use of EU customs and passport channels unhindered for everyone who have not consented to this right being withdrawn, otherwise they are obeying the orders of thier UKIP/NEO-fascist overlords.

There is no reason why EU cannot agree an emergency treaty to allow 'split' arrangments, whereby those of us who do not consent to leave retain 100% of the benefits of EU membership, and everyone else has no rights whatsover. I would be happy to pay my £20 per year contribution on top of my tax liabilities, for which I would also expect to right of representation in the European Parliament and European Council. I would also expect the EU to enforce all European Law that has an impact on the rights of thise who do not consent to leave, if necessary applying harsh sanctions against those who do consent. I would, finally, expect EU to compensate UK citizens for non-compliance by the UK government, recovering the costs through the aforementioned sanctions.

it is all a perfecr solution. Leavers get everything they want for themselves - pay for it - without ****ing up the lives of the rest of us.

Unbelievably reckless language from The Praying Mantis last night, trying to lay the blame for her own abject failure on to MPs and Parliament. In these highly-emotionally-charged times, she spoke in a way that is likely to stir up a great deal of antipathy towards MPs of every stripe, even to the point of endangering their lives.

She is a disgrace, the author of her own misfortune, and not fit to serve this country in any position, let alone PM.

The UK government’s petitions website crashed on Thursday morning as thousands of people attempted to sign a plea for article 50 to be revoked.

The petition began gaining signatures on Wednesday evening after Theresa May criticised MPs for not approving her Brexit deal. It had received almost 600,000 signatures and was growing at a rate of 1,500 a minute before the site crashed.

The petition calls on the government to revoke article 50 and keep Britain in the EU, continuing: “The government repeatedly claims exiting the EU is the will of the people. We need to put a stop to this claim by proving the strength of public support now for remaining in the EU. A people’s vote may not happen, so vote now.”

Surely, revocation would be a simple way out of your mess, but as a Yank, what do I know?

Fingers crossed that Parliament comes to its senses, does the right thing and revokes A50, and saves the large majority who didn't express a desire to leave the E.U. from the stupidity of the minority who did.

The TUC and CBI now sending a joint communication to The Praying Mantis, expressing their dismay at the disaster she has turned BrexShit into, and imploring her to change tack.

Surely now, even the most oafish, flag-waving, Union-Jack-Underpants-wearing, 'Take Are Cuntry Back" Brexshitter can now see what those of us who weren't brainwashed by Anti-EU BrexShit propaganda have known from Day-One, that BrexShit is a complete, unmitigated disaster in the making?

As much as I am against leaving the EU I must say I would have preferred the government just to have laid out their leaving terms to the EU and then leave to the interminable nonsense we are now going through. I thought Cameron the pig sticker was bad. May the mantis is even worse.